[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: ptero endothermy

"Jaime A. Headden" wrote:

> Dave Peters (davidrpeters@earthlink.net) wrote:
> <????? Except that the longer ilia preceded the wings by thousands of
> generations.>
>   I should think the "reminder" that this is based on as yet unpublished
> and some published, but hardly agreed upon data, and should be presented
> as well as taken as an hypothesis, not as fact. Phylogenetic precursors
> are always a majorly hypothetical argument.
> =====
> Jaime A. Headden

>>>  Jaime, your attempt at 'wisdom' here falls flat, in my opinion.

In science, I am led to believe, the best explanation at the time is the 
working explanation. If a better one comes along we should jump from this wagon 
onto that one.

The prolacertiform hypothesis works. Cladistically it works if you throw away 
Longisquama. And Sharovipteryx. And Cosesaurus. And Langobardisaurus. If all 
you have is Tanystropheus for an outgroup, it just barely holds out over 
and that little bipedal croc, Scleromochlus. That's all been published. It 
explains virtually every mystery we have of pterosaurs. If you have, or have 
ever heard of a better hypothesis, please bring it to the table. And yes there 
is new
news around the corner.

The pelvis deal is old news. Why it hasn't been accepted is (as you already 
know from your readings of Martin, Feduccia, Jones, Ruben, etc. in another 
well-known squabble) academic politics.

If you only have tomatoes to throw, please don't throw any more. You're one of 
the smartest scientists of your generation. Tear down the prolacertiform 
hypothesis or any part of it. That's your challenge. If it is possible, I think 
you are
the guy to do it.

Your bud,
David Peters